What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notices and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Principles of natural justice were violated.

The assessee made cash deposits in his bank account, claiming them as gifts. The Assessing Officer added a portion of these deposits to the assessee's income as undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

Sh. Surmukh Singh, Mohali vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2019

आदेश/Order

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23.7.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh.

The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex- parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 25,88,000/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI bank. The case was reopened to examine the deposits which the assessee claimed to have received as gifts from his wife’s relatives. The assessee was asked to establish the creditworthiness and capacity of donors of the impugned gifts of Rs. 15,05,000/- but the assessee could furnish explanation regarding

ITA No. 1220-Chd-2018- Sh. Surmukh Singh, Mohali 2

deposits of Rs. 6,50,000/- only. Therefore, the Assessing officer made

addition of the remaining amount of Rs. 8,55,000/- as income from

undisclosed sources.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A)

who dismissed the appeal in limine by observing that the assessee did not

attend on the dates fixed for hearing and also nothing new has been

brought on record to controvert the findings of the Assessing officer..

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that no opportunity of being heard was provided by the ld.

CIT(A) and further submitted that there was a reasonable cause for non-

appearance on the appointed date before the CIT(A). It has been further

submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the impugned order

passed by the ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused

the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted

fact that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an

ex-parte order. However, it is not clear as to whether the notices issued for

different dates were served upon the assessee or not. It is well settled that

nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram

partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice,

deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)

to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

ITA No. 1220-Chd-2018- Sh. Surmukh Singh, Mohali 3

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/03/2019)

Sd/- (एन.के. सैनी/ N.K. SAINI) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT

Dated : 06.03.2019 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

SH. SURMUKH SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments